The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Frequent Diagnostic Errors in Cardiac PET/CT Due to Misregistration of CT Attenuation and Emission PET Images: A Definitive Analysis of Causes, Consequences, and Corrections
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: Cardiac PET combined with CT is rapidly expanding despite artifactual defects and false-positive results due to misregistration of PET and CT attenuation correction data-the frequency, cause, and correction of which remain undetermined. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-nine consecutive patients underwent diagnostic rest-dipyridamole myocardial perfusion PET/CT using (82)Rb, a 16-slice PET/CT scanner, helical CT attenuation correction with breathing and also at end-expiratory breath-hold, and averaged cine CT data during breathing. Misregistration on superimposed PET/CT fusion images was objectively measured in millimeters and correlated with associated quantitative size and severity of PET defects. Misregistration artifacts were defined as PET defects with corresponding misregistration on helical CT-PET fusion images that resolved after correct coregistration using a repeat CT scan, cine CT averaged attenuation during normal breathing, or shifted cine CT data that coregistered with PET data. RESULTS: Misregistration of standard helical CT PET images caused artifactual PET defects in 103 of 259 (40%) patients that were moderate to severe in 59 (23%) (P = 0.0000) and quantitatively normalized on cine or shifted cine CT PET (P = 0.0000). Quantitative misregistration was a powerful predictor of artifact size and severity (P = 0.0000), particularly for transaxial misregistration >6 mm occurring in anterior or lateral areas in 76%, in inferior areas in 16%, and at the apex in 8% of 103 artifactual defects. CONCLUSION: Misregistration of helical CT attenuation and PET emission images causes artifactual defects with false-positive results in 40% of patients that normalize on cine CT PET using averaged CT attenuation data during normal breathing comparable to normal breathing during PET emission scanning and shifting cine CT images to coregister visually with PET.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
PET versus SPECT: strengths, limitations and challenges
Rahmim, A., & Zaidi, H. (2008) · Nuclear Medicine Communications · doi:10.1097/mnm.0b013e3282f3a515 · Cited by 834
Murthy, V. L., Bateman, T. M., Beanlands, R. S., Berman, D. S., Borges-Neto, S., Chareonthaitawee, P., Cerqueira, M. D., deKemp, R. A., DePuey, E. G., Dilsizian, V., et al. (2018) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.201368 · Cited by 346
Buck, A. K., Nekolla, S., Ziegler, S., Beer, A., Krause, B. J., Herrmann, K., Scheidhauer, K., Wester, H.-J., Rummeny, E. J., Schwaiger, M., et al. (2008) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.050195 · Cited by 282
Enhancing Cardiac PET by Motion Correction Techniques
Rubeaux, M., Doris, M. K., Alessio, A., & Slomka, P. J. (2017) · Current Cardiology Reports · doi:10.1007/s11886-017-0825-2 · Cited by 48
Gating Approaches in Cardiac PET Imaging
Lassen, M. L., Kwiecinski, J., & Slomka, P. J. (2019) · PET Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.cpet.2018.12.008 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Gould, K. L., Pan, T., Loghin, C., Johnson, N. P., Guha, A., & Sdringola, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2007-07-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1112-1121
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162716756
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Frequent Diagnostic Errors in Cardiac PET/CT Due to Misregistration of CT Attenuation and Emission PET Images: A Definitive Analysis of Causes, Consequences, and Corrections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.107.039792
- The paper
- Gould, K. L., Pan, T., Loghin, C., Johnson, N. P., Guha, A., & Sdringola, S. (2007). Frequent Diagnostic Errors in Cardiac PET/CT Due to Misregistration of CT Attenuation and Emission PET Images: A Definitive Analysis of Causes, Consequences, and Corrections. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.039792
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
